Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.23 Density Bonus CITY CLERK File #0660-40 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Opposition to AB 779 -Density Bonus: Transit Villages Report Prepared By: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2) AB 779 Background and Analysis Letter to Assemblyman Torlakson Opposing AB 779 RECOMMENDATION: Oppose AB 779 and direct staff to send the attached letter with the Mayor's signature to the Assemblyman Torlakson, with copies to Senator Rainey and the Members of the Senate Local Government Committee FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: Assembly Bill 779 requires cities and counties to grant a 25% residential and commercial density bonus, and a 15% reduction in parking requirements to developments within a ¼ mile of a public transit station. Development projects would qualify for the density bonuses and parking reductions in AB 779 regardlesS of whether the City has adopted transit village plans. In short, this bill proposes to override all local general plans and zoning within one-quarter mile of any existing or planned rail station in the state. The residential and commercial density bonus increases the number of units (square footage for commercial) to 25% more than the maximum number of units allowed by the general plan and zoning ordinance. The parking reduction decreases the number of parking places to 15% less than the minimum parking requirement. The idea is that the bonuses will motivate developers to invest near transit stations by guaranteeing bigger projects and presumably better investment returns. Most cities do not need these bonuses to plan and develop transit villages. The City of Dublin is currently in the process of developing specific plans for two transit villages adjacent to the existing BART station in Eastern Dublin and the future BART station in Western Dublin. These plans include high-density housing, hotels, office and retail uses. Mandatory density bonuses and parking reductions would be It/cc-for~s/agdastmt.d oc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. detrimental to this process by removing the City's flexibility in negotiating with developers, and would severely limit the City's ability to plan for the needs of the community. AB 779 recently passed the State Assembly and will be considered by the Senate Local Government Committee on Wednesday, June 21. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council oppose AB 779 and direct staff to send the attached letter with the Mayor's signature to the Assemblyman Torlakson, with copies to Senator Rainey and the Members of the Senate Local Government Committee. AB 779 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 1 of 5 SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE Senator Richard K. Rainey, Chairman BILL NO: AUTHOR: VERSION: AB 779 Torlakson 6/15/00 HEARING: 6/21/00 FISCAL: No CONSULTANT: Detwiler TRANSIT VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT Backqround and Existing Law The Planning and Zoning Law requires every city and county to adopt a general plan, with specified contents. Local officials' land use decisions -- zoning, subdivisions, public works, use permits -- must be consistent with their general plans. Over 20 years ago, the Legislature created the density bonus as an exception to the usual consistency requirement. When a developer promises to make at least 20% of the housing units affordable for lower-income households, the city or county must grant the developer 25% more units over the otherwise maximum density allowed by the general plan and zoning (AB 1151, Roos, 1979). Over $14 billion has been invested in California's rail public transit systems over the last 25 years but mass transit ridership continues to slip. One reason is that new development focuses on areas served by publicly financed freeways and not on transit corridors. The public investment in rail transit goes to waste when local officials fail to promote private development around rail transit stations. Local officials in some communities have created transit villages by increasing residential and commercial densities within walking distance of rail stops, speeding up permits, and subsidizing public works to attract private investors. In 1994, legislators passed the Transit Village Development Planning Act which allowed cities and counties to plan more intense development around rail transit stations. Transit village plans are supposed to identify areas where local officials would be willing to grant 25% density bonuses (AB 3152, Bates, 1994). Because the plans are voluntary and not linked to specific new sources of development money, cities and counties have not embraced them. AB 779 -- 6/15/00 -- Page 2 A 1998 University of California study reviewed builders' and local officials' experiences with transit villages and http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_07.../ab_779 cfa 20000615 132051 ATTACHMENT AB 779 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 2 of 5 found several common themes. One recommendation was that local officials must grant density bonuses in transit villages. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 779 requires cities and counties to grant a 25% residential density bonus, a 25% commercial density bonus, and a 15% reduction in parking requirements to development with a quarter-mile of a public transit station. Development projects qualify for the density bonuses and parking reductions in AB 779 regardless if local officials have adopted transit village plans. However, local officials do not have to grant the bonuses and parking reduction if they find that the city or county has already adopted a specific plan that provides a 25% density bonus or that the density bonus has adverse public health or safety effects that can't be reduced or avoided. The residential density bonus increases the number of units to 25% more than the maximum number of units allowed by the general plan and zoning ordinance, rounded up to the next whole unit. The commercial density bonus increases the amount of square footage to 25% more than the maximum area allowed by the general plan and zoning ordinance, rounded up to the next whole floor° A commercial builder must comply with local set-back standards but must be allowed to exceed height limits. The parking reduction decreases the number of parking places to 15% less than the minimum parking requirement. AB 779 requires cities and counties to consider these required density bonuses and the parking reduction to be ministerial decisions unless the local officials find that the city or county has already adopted a specific plan that provides a 25% density bonus or that the density bonus has adverse public health or safety effects that can't be reduced or avoided. If a development project triggers an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the AB 779 -- 6/15/00 -- Page 3 project must include the required density bonuses and the parking reduction. The review of project alternatives under CEQA shall not include reducing the densities or increasing the parking requirements unless the reduction is needed to avoid adverse public health or safety effects. AB 779 includes both rail transit stations and ferry landings within its definition of public transit station. The bill repeals the ability of a city or county to require a developer to enter into a development agreement as a condition of implementing a density bonus. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab.._O7.../ab_779 cfa 20000615_13205 l_sen_comm.htm 06/19/2000 AB 779 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3 of 5 Comments 1. Public dollars, private projects Public officials have spent billions to rebuild and expand California's rail transit: interurban rail lines, heavy-rail subways, and light-rail trolleys. The public sector invests in rail transit as part of a wider strategy to cut congestion and boost air quality. But unless local land use decisions attract private investors to build near transit stations, the public's investment will be wasted. One way to motivate private builders is to guarantee bigger projects and presumably better investment returns. The density bonuses and parking reductions in AB 779 will get their attention. 2. A few inqredients short of the full recipe Common sense and good economics suggest that local officials should welcome developers who want to build near transit stations. The UC report found good examples of communities and builders who are doing just that. But a density bonus is just one ingredient in a more complete recipe for developing transit villages. Dedicating funding for plans and pre-development activities will motivate local officials t6 accept the more intense land use demands of transit villages. Granting travel credits under the congestion management program will mesh transit villages with overall transportation planning. Better integrating transit village plans into the land use laws can avoid duplicative CEQA reviews. Building state offices in transit villages will boost private investors' confidence. Expanding the transit villages' radius from mile to mile will encourage more development. The Committee may wish to consider why AB 779 fails to include these other AB 779 -- 6/15/00 -- Page 4 recommendations. 3. Window to the reqion Rail transit stations are truly "windows to the region" that connect transit village residents and workers with the wider metropolitan area. When a suburban community persuades the transit district to build a station but then insists on iow density development, the loss is social as well as fiscal. Communities with the benefits rail transit stations have a regional obligation to promote more intense development and capitalize on the public investment. AB 779 exempts communities that have already adopted higher densities. It forces density bonuses on communities that haven't been so accommodating. 4. Down at the station The CalTrain station in San Mateo probably qualifies under AB 779, so does the Lafayette BART station. But the bill doesn't define a "rail station." Does the place where Sacramento's light-rail train stops at 39th Street fit the bill? What about where N-car stops http://info.sen.ca.gov/pubPoill/asm/ab_07.../ab_779 cfa 20000615_13205 l_sen_comm.htm 06/19/2000 AB 779 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis Page 4 of 5 along Judah Street in San Francisco? If every trolley stop is a "rail station," then the resulting -mile concentric circles may cover entire neighborhoods, not just the intended nodes. The Committee may wish to consider adopting a better definition of "rail station." 5. Restore development agreements ? AB 779 repeals local officials' current ability to require a builder to enter into a development agreement for density bonuses. Development agreements give both the private and the public sector ample opportunities to negotiate the details of long-term projects. The Committee may wish to consider an amendment that restores this valuable tool. 6. Double referral Because AB 779 affects the California Environmental Quality Act, the Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double-referral to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Assembly Actions Assembly Local Government Committee: 5-3 Assembly Floor: 48-30 AB 779 -- 6/15/00 -- Paqe 5 Support and Opposition (6/15/) Support : State Treasurer Philip Angelides, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, California Futures Network, California Housing Council, California Transit Association, Planning and Conservation League, Association of Bay Area Governments, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Creative Housing Association LLC, Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, Opposition : California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, Cities of Concord, Hayward, Lafayette, Victorville. _ http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab.07.../ab_779_cfa_20000615_13205 l_sen_comm.htm 06/19/2000 AB 779 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 1 of 5 BILL NUMBER: AB 779 BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE AMENDED IN SENATE AMENDED IN SENATE AMENDED JUNE 15, 2000 APRIL 24, 2000 JULY 8, 1999 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Torlakson FEBRUARY 24, 1999 An act to amend Sections 65460, 65460.2, and 65460.4 of, and to repeal and add Section 65460.10 of, the Government Code, relating to infrastructure development. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 779, as amended, Torlakson. Infrastructure development: transit village plans. The Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 authorizes a city or county to prepare a transit village development plan that addresses, among other things, increased densities of residential development within not less than 1/4 mile of a rail transit station and other land uses, including a retail district, as specified, and sites where a density bonus of at least 25% may be granted pursuant to specified performance standards. The act also authorizes a city, county, or city and county to require a developer to enter into a development agreement, as specified, to implement a density bonus specified in the transit village plan and provides that no public works project, tentative subdivision map, or parcel map may be approved, nor zoning ordinance adopted or amended, within an area covered by a transit village plan unless the map, project, or ordinance is consistent with the adopted transit village plan. This bill would revise these provisions to apply to a public Transit station, as defined, and would revise the density bonuses and any parking reduction available to project applicants for commercial, residential, or mixed commercial and residential uses within 1/4 mile of a public transit station, as specified. The bill would authorize the city, county, or city and county to revise an applicant's calculations to conform to these requirements. The bill would also require that, where the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to an applicant's proposal for a project, as specified, the environmental analysis shall not include reduced density or increased parking alternatives or recommend reduced density or increased parking as a mitigation measure, unless it is necessary to reduce or avoid a specific, adverse, and significant impact on public health or safety. If compliance with CEQA is not otherwise required, the applicant's request for or the agency's granting of the density bonus or parking reduction would not make CEQA applicable and would not be interpreted to require a general plan amendment, rezone, or any other discretionary land use approval. The bill would also require the agency to grant the request unless it makes a specified a finding based on substantial evidence in the record. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: http ://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0751-0800/ab_779_bill_20000615_amended_sen.htm106/19/2000 AB 779 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 2 of 5 SECTION 1. Section 65460 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65460. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994. (b) As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply: (1) "Public transit station" means an existing rail station, cra ~!anncd rail ctation or ferry dock or landing, or a planned rail station or ferry dock or landing for which construction funds are committed or programmed. -~ ' county, it~ . (~) "~ ...... ~ ~ .......... crcia! ............. ~ ~ retail, (2) "Commercial" or "commercial uses" means office, retail, research and development, or public uses. SEC. 2. Section 65460.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65460.2. A city or county may prepare a transit village plan for a transit village development district that addresses cc..mc or all of the following characteristics: (a) A neighborhood centered around a transit station that is planned and designed so that residents, workers, shoppers, and others find it convenient and attractive to patronize transit. (b) A mix of housing types, including multiple dwelling units, within not more than a quarter mile of the exterior boundary of the parcel on which the transit station is located. (c) Other land uses, including a retail district oriented to the transit station and civic uses, including day care centers and libraries. (d) Pedestrian and bicycle access to the transit station, with attractively designed and landscaped pathways. (e) A public transit system that should encourage and facilitate intermodal service, and access by modes other than single occupant vehicles. (f) Demonstrable public benefits beyond the increase in transit usage, including any cr all of the following: (1) Reduction of traffic congestion. (2) Improved air quality. (3) Increased transit revenue yields. (4) Increased stock of affordable housing. (5) Redevelopment of depressed and marginal inner-city neighborhoods. (6) Live-travel options for transit-needy groups. (7) Promotion of infill development and preservation of natural resources. (8) Promotion of a safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly environment around transit stations. (9) Reduction of the need for additional travel by providing for the sale of goods and services at transit stations. (10) Promotion of job opportunities. (11) Improved cost effectiveness through the use of the existing lnfrastructure. (12) Increased sales and property tax revenue. (13) Reduction in energy consumption. (g) Other provisions that may be necessary, based on the report prepared pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 14045. SEC. 3. Section 65460.4 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65460.4. A transit village development district shall include all land within not more than a quarter mile of the exterior boundary of the parcel on which is located a public transit station designated by the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county that http://info.sen.ca, gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_07 51-0800/ab_779_bill_20000615_amended_sen.htm106/19/2000 AB 779 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 5 has jurisdiction over the station area. For purposes of this article, "district" means a transit village development district as defined in this section. SEC. 4. Section 65460.10 of the Government Code is repealed. SEC. 5. Section 65460.10 is added to the Government Code, to read: 65460.10. (a) Regardless of whether a transit village plan or a transit village development district is adopted by an a~cncy, a city, county, or city and county, applicants for commercial, residential, or mixed commercial and residential uses within one-quarter mile of a public transit station shall be entitled to a 25 percent residential density bonus, a minimum 25 percent commercial density bonus, and a 15 percent parking reduction as defined ~---~ ~ .... ~^~ in subdivision (f). A city, county, or city and county shall consider the granting of a density bonus and parking reduction as ministerial unless the agency city, county, or city and county makes the findings in subdivision (g). {b) On land designated in'an agency's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance as residential, either single family or multifamily, an applicant shall be entitled to a residential density bonus of 25 percent more units than the maximum units allowed under the general plan and zoning ordinance. The applicant shall calculate the residential density bonus by establishing the maximum allowed density under the ~cncy's city's, county's, or city and county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance and increasing that number of units by 25 percent, rounded up to the closest unit. The applicant shall make the request for the residential density bonus at the time the application is submitted and shall include the calculations justifying the requested residential density bonus. Where the applicant's calculations do not conform with the requirements of this subdivision, the city, county, or city and county may revise them to so conform. (c) On land designated in an a~ncy's a city's, county's, or city and county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance for any type of commercial use, an applicant shall be entitled to a commercial density bonus of a 25 percent increase in square footage more than the maximum square footage allowed under the general plan and zoning ordinance. The applicant shall calculate the commercial density bonus by establishing the maximum allowed square footage under the -v ....... .... ~'s city's, county's, or city and county's general plan and zoning ordinance, including applicable setback requirements, and increasing that square footage by 25 percent. However, if the calculation results in a partial floor, the applicant shall be granted a commercial density bonus of more than 25 percent or a percentage equal to the additional square footage necessary to construct a complete floor. An applicant granted a commercial density bonus shall comply with applicable setback requirements and other restrictions that determine the maximum footprint for the project, but need not comply with height restrictions that otherwise might apply. The applicant shall make the request for the commercial density bonus at the time the application is submitted to the a~cncy city, county, or city and county and shall include the calculations justifying the requested commercial density bonus. Where the applicant's calculations do not conform with the requirements of this subdivision, the city, county, or city and county may revise them to so conform. (d) On land designated in an a~cncy's a city's, county's, or city and county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance for mixed commercial and residential uses, an applicant shall be entitled to both a residential and commercial density bonus as set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c). http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0751-0800/ab_779_bill_20000615_amended_sen.html06/19/2000 AB 779 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 4 of 5 The applicant shall make the request for the residential density bonus or the commercial density bonus or both at the time that the application is submitted to the z~cncy cityz county, or city and county and shall include the calculations justifying the requested bonuses. Where the applicant's calculations do not conform with the requirements of this subdivision, the city, county, or city and county may revise them to so conform. (e) In the event that compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) is required for either a residential, commercial, or mixed commercial and residential project as described in subdivision (b), {c), or {d), the project, as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code, shall include the residential or commercial density bonus. Project alternatives in any environmental analysis prepared under CEQA shall not include reduced density alternatives or recommend reduced density as a mitigation measure, unless the alternatives or mitigation are necessary to reduce or avoid a specific, adverse, and significant impact on public health or safety. In the event that compliance with CEQA is not otherwise required, the applicant's request for or the agency's city's, county's, or city and county's granting of the residential or commercial density bonus shall not make CEQA applicable. The request for or the granting of a residential or commercial density bonus, in and of itself, shall not be interpreted to require a general plan amendment, rezone, or any other discretionary land use approval. (f) On land designated in an ~gcncy's a · tity's, county's, or city and county's general plan and applicable zoning ordinance as residential, either single family or multifamilY, any type of commercial, or mixed commercial and residential uses, an applicant shall be entitled to a 15 percent parking reduction from the agency's minimum parking requirement. The parking reduction shall apply to the project in addition to the density bonus granted pursuant to subdivision (b), (c), or (d). The applicant shall make the request for the parking reduction at the time the application is submitted to the agcncy city, county, or city and county and shall include the calculations justifying the requested parking reduction. In the event that compliance with CEQA is required for a project for which a parking reduction is requested, the project, as defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code, shall include the parking reduction. Project alternatives in any environmental analysis prepared under CEQA shall not include increased parking alternatives or recommend increased parking as mitigation, unless the alternatives or mitigation are necessary to reduce or avoid a specific, adverse, and significant impact on public health or safety. In the event that compliance with CEQA is not otherwise required, the applicant's request for or the agency's granting of the parking redUction shall not make CEQA applicable. The request for or the granting of a parking reduction, in and of itself, shall not be interpreted to require a general plan amendment, rezone, or any other discretionary land use approval. (g) The agcncy city, county, or city and county shall grant an applicant's request for the residential or commercial density bonus unless the agency makes a finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that (1) the agency city, county, or city and county has already adopted a specific plan cra transit cvorlay ~ono that entitles the development to at least a 25 percent density bonus, or (2) the residential or commercial density bonus will result in a specific, adverse, and significant impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible method available to substantially reduce or avoid the specific, adverse, and substantial impact to an acceptable http://info.sen.ca.gov/pubPoill/asm/ab_07 51-0800/ab_779_bill_20000615_amended_sen.htm106/19/2000 AB 779 Assembly Bill - AMENDED Page 5 of 5 level. (h) The agcncy city, county, or city and county shall grant an applicant's request for the parking reduction unless the agcncy city, county, or city and county makes a finding, based on substantial evidence in the record, that (1) the a~cncy city, county, or city and county has already adopted a specific plan cra transit cuss!ay zcnc that entitles the development to a 15 percent parking reduction, or (2) the parking reduction will result in a specific, adverse, and significant impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible method available to substantially reduce or avoid the specific, adverse, and substantial impact to an acceptable level. (i) Applicants shall not be entitled to more than one statutory density bonus. (j) Notwithstanding Section 65803, this section shall apply to charter cities for the reasons set forth in Section 65460.1 and because denser development around rail stations is an issue of statewide interest http://info.sen.ca, gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0751-0800/ab_779_bill_20000615_amended_sen.htm106/19/2000 CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 June 20,2000 Assemblyman Tom Torlakson State Capitol P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249 RE: AB 779.(Torlakson) Density Bonus: Transit Villages Notice of Opposition, Unless Amended Dear Assemblyman Torlakson: I want to voice my strong opposition to your bill, AB 779 because it preempts local authority for zoning and planning and is contrary to the best interests of local government and our community. Dublin is currently in the process of developing Specific Plans for two transit villages adjacent to the existing BART station in Eastern Dublin and the future BART station in Western Dublin. The plans for these areas will include high density housing (25+ units/acre), hotels, office and retail uses. The City is meeting the intent of the Bill by building high density housing and job related office uses that maximize the potential of mass transit and minimize the reliance on automobiles, especially in our transit corridors. Unfortunately, mandatory density bonuses and reduced parking requirements would be detrimental to this process by removing the City's flexibility in negotiating with developers, and would severely limit the City's ability to plan for the needs of the community. Thank you for your consideration of the legitimate needs of local government to maintain control of our planning and zoning. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any assiStance, please call me at 925-833-6650. Sincerely, Guy S. Houston Mayor CC: Senator Richard K. Rainey Senate Local Government Committee Administration (925)833-6650 - City Council (925)833-6605 · Finance (925)833-6640 · B ..... Code Enforcement (925) 833-6620 · Engineering (925) 833-6630 · Parks & Commun Economic Development (925) 833-6650 · Police (925) 833-6670 · Public Wo Community Development (925) 833-6610 · Fire Prevention Bureau (92 ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM TO BE ADDED TO AGENDA Opposition to AB 779-Density Bonus: Transit Villages It is proposed that the Council add the following item, Opposition to AB779- Density Bonuses:Transit Villages, to the agenda as an urgency item, (Item 4.23). Complete information regarding this issue was unavailable prior to the printing of the Agenda. Because AB 779 will be discussed in the Senate Local Government Committee on June 21, 2000, the Council will need to vote on this item tonight. In order to discuss and vote on this item, the Council will first need a 4/5 vote to add this to the Agenda as Item 4.23 at the end of the Consent Calendar.